G.R. No. L-24898 - Go Oh vs. Vivo

Petitioners Go Oh and her minor children (Helen, James, William, and Henry Gooh) arrived in the Philippines on January 1, 1962, from Hongkong.
They presented certificates of registration and identity (Nos. 1061 to 1065) issued by the Philippine Consulate General in Hongkong as the basis for their admission.

On August 2, 1962, a Board of Special Inquiry of the Bureau of Immigration initiated an investigation regarding the political status and claim to Philippine citizenship of petitioners.
On September 8, 1962, the Board rendered a decision to exclude Go Oh and her children, basing its ruling on:

The failure of petitioners to meet the burden of proving their claim to Philippine citizenship by relying on the questionable status of Go Oh’s alleged father, Paulino Roon.
Evidentiary concerns involving the unsound nature of the certificates, the irregularities in the children’s names (noting that they had used different names before 1961), and inconsistencies in testimony regarding their parentage.

The decision emphasized that petitioners could not establish a stronger claim to citizenship than precedent cases and underscored the reliance on documentary and testimonial evidence under the strict rules of the immigration laws.

Following the Board of Special Inquiry’s adverse decision, the Bureau of Immigration’s Board of Commissioners reviewed the case motu proprio within the statutory period.
On December 20, 1962, the Board of Commissioners affirmed the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry by:

Issuing a written decision ordering the exclusion of petitioners.
Issuing a warrant of exclusion, thereby instructing that petitioners be removed from the Philippines on the first available transportation.

A formal notification of the decision was dispatched on September 20, 1963 to the petitioners.

On or about September 28, 1963, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition, along with a request for a preliminary injunction, before the Court of First Instance of Manila.
Their prayer sought:

A declaration that the decisions of both the Board of Special Inquiry and the Board of Commissioners were null and void.
Permanent relief prohibiting the respondents from arresting and excluding them from the country.
The issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction restraining enforcement of the exclusion orders.

The lower court initially granted the writ on October 11, 1963 and later, on July 15, 1965, rendered a decision in favor of petitioners.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Barredo clarified that although there was an admitted failure by the immigration authorities to serve timely notice of the adverse decision, such omission did not amount to a denial of the petitioners’ due process rights from a strict technical perspective.
The concurring opinion further noted that, despite procedural imperfections, the statutory framework allowed the Board of Commissioners to exercise its review power within the prescribed period.

Whether the petitioners were denied due process because they did not receive proper notice of the Board of Special Inquiry’s decision before the Board of Commissioners reviewed and affirmed it.
Whether the lack of timely notice prevented petitioners from exercising their right to appeal as required under the immigration procedural rules.

Whether the Board of Commissioners acted within its jurisdiction by conducting a motu proprio review of the Board of Special Inquiry’s decision within the statutory period.
Whether the timing and manner of the review, particularly the discrepancy between the decision’s operative date and the service of notice, affected the legality of the exclusion orders.